Conflict of interest for new EPA head

The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency has been an open advocate of genetic engineering, and therefore has a conflict of interest when it comes to looking after the environment, says the Soil & Health Association.

 

Dr Allan Freeth starts his role as chief executive of the EPA in September. While managing director of Wrightson Group, Dr Freeth was described as an outspoken advocate of GE, and facilitated research into GE pasture species. During his time at Wrightson’s, the company bought Genesis, which has been involved in growing GE trees with ArborGen in the USA and South America.

 

“We are concerned that Dr Freeth’s appointment is part of a push for genetic engineering on several fronts in New Zealand,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “The EPA is tasked with protecting the environment, and needs to apply the precautionary principle when there is any doubt – as is the case with GE. It is essential for transparent process that Dr Freeth’s views do not influence EPA decision-making.”

 

Dr Freeth’s appointment to the EPA comes at a time when the Ministry for Primary Industries is consulting on a National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry. If adopted with the current wording, the proposed standard would remove the right of local communities to determine whether GE trees could be released in their area – making the EPA the sole arbiter of decisions about GE trees in New Zealand.

 

This follows a ruling by Principal Environment Court Judge Newhook that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act for regional councils to make provision for GE organisms through regional policy statements and plans. The ruling came as a result of a court case brought by Federated Farmers.Federated Farmers, which is now headed by another GE proponent, Dr William Rolleston, is appealing the decision in the High Court.

 

“Millions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on GE field trials, including GE trees, with no positive results to date,” says Thomson. “Rather than go down the GE track, New Zealand has a great opportunity to maintain and strengthen our point of difference. We need to live up to our clean, green image with high-value, environmentally sustainable, GE-free organic farming and forestry. This is what markets around the world are crying out for.”

 

Soil & Health urges New Zealanders to have their say on the proposed forestry standard; submissions are due on 11 August.* The Association is proud that New Zealand has so far had no commercial releases of GE organisms, and that democracy and the public’s desire for a GE-free New Zealand have prevailed.

 

 

CONTACT

Marion Thomson

Co-chair, Soil & Health Association

027 555 4014

 

*Proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry – submissions due 11 August 2015:

mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/consultations/proposed-national-environmental-standard-for-plantation-forestry

New wave of GE-free activism

Pressure from the biotech industry for the government to relax laws on genetic engineering will result in a new wave of GE-free activism, the Soil & Health Association predicts.

This follows comments from some GE companies, and from the Treasury Secretary Gabriel Makhlouf in a speech at Fieldays that New Zealand is missing out on opportunities.

“Kiwis have fought hard to keep our environment GE-free, but if that is threatened, we will see massive protests,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “GE farming and/or forestry will jeopardise our clean, green brand.”

Relaxing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act would be absolutely detrimental to our environment, our economy and to our communities. Experiences overseas have shown that GE crops have led to the rise of herbicide-tolerant ‘superweeds’, and the use of more and stronger pesticides. GE yields are no greater. In the USA and Europe, pig farmers using GE stock feed are seeing health problems and deformities in piglets, and finding that the pigs cannot breed; instead of a fetus there is just a sac of water.

“The trouble is that genetic engineering is inherently risky. Scientists cannot control where inserted genetic material ends up in the DNA,” says Thomson. “This can lead to unexpected outcomes. For example, many people are allergic to the pine pollen that is widespread around New Zealand, but imagine if GE pine pollen turned out to be even more allergenic, or even toxic?”

“Millions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on GE field trials, with no positive results to date,” says Thomson. “Rather than go down the GE road, New Zealand has a great opportunity to keep our point of difference. Let’s ensure that we live up to our clean, green image and shift towards high-value, environmentally sustainable, GE-free organic farming and forestry. This is what markets around the world are crying out for.”

Media contact

Marion Thomson, co-chair, Soil & Health

027 555 4014

advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

REFERENCES

http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/ – GMO Myths and Truths – an evidence-based document by two genetic engineers and a researcher

Pig farming references:

http://sustainablepulse.com/2012/04/24/pulse-news-2/

http://sustainablepulse.com/2012/07/06/agribusiness-farmer-loses-biz-gmos-promotes-organic/#.VX9FF6ats7A

GE Activists

Our democratic right to be GE-free

Media release from the Soil & Health Association and GE Free Northland

One of the most important Environment Court decisions this year is the finding that councils can control the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under the Resource Management Act.

New Zealand’s oldest organic organisation, the Soil & Health Association, along with GE Free Northland, supported the Whangarei District Council in a successful defence of the right of local authorities to manage the use of GMOs in their regions, after Federated Farmers sought a ruling that Northland Regional Council had acted outside the law in taking this approach.

Since comprehensively losing the appeal (which it initiated) on all points of law, Federated Farmers has now filed an appeal against the Environment Court’s decision with the High Court.

In May, Principal Environment Court Judge Newhook found that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act for regional councils to make planning decisions about the outdoor use of GMOs in their regions.

“Soil & Health was delighted to have our view confirmed by Judge Newhook,” said Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “We’re disappointed, however, that an organisation that supposedly represents farmers has decided to appeal the decision. Why does Federated Farmers want to deny Northlanders the right to manage what happens in their own region? Is there an application in the wings for a GE field trial or GMO release in Northland?”

“The laws around liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO are non-existent,” said Martin Robinson, spokesman for GE Free Northland. “Because of the gaps in the law a number of councils around New Zealand are moving to protect their primary producers and communities by introducing precautionary or prohibitive policies.”

“It is vitally important that there should be a much-needed layer of protection, should there be damages caused by any outdoor use of GMOs,” said Mr Robinson.

“In our view, Federated Farmers is stalling for time and wasting money, while hoping for a law change.We hope that if the government is not prepared to change the law to protect innocent victims, it will at least recognise the rights of the regions to control the outdoor use of GMOs by using the RMA to include iwi and community aspirations in their Regional Statements,” said Mr. Robinson.

The government will need the support of the Maori Party, United Future or New Zealand First to change the law. GE Free Northland says it hopes these parties recognise how much support there is from iwi and other Northlanders for their councils to control the outdoor use of GMOs using the RMA.

“It will be interesting to see whether the government is prepared to abandon their unhelpful proposal to include a new paragraph in the RMA, spelling out that central government will block the work of local authorities to create a much-needed additional tier of local protection against the risks of outdoor use of GMOs,” said Mr Robinson.

Pure Hawkes Bay commissioned a Colmar Brunton poll in 2013 in which four out of five New Zealanders thought councils should be able to keep their districts GE-free using local plans.

“Consumers around the world are crying out for organic and GE-free products,” said Marion Thomson. “It makes economic and environmental sense to pursue clean, green farming, and not dice with risky GE technology that has failed to perform, and created problems overseas.”

Media contacts:

Marion Thomson

Co-chair, Soil & Health Association

advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

027 555 4014

Martin Robinson
Spokesperson, GE Free Northland
09 407 8650
022 136 9619

Zelka Linda Grammer

Chairperson, GE Free Northland

09 432 2155

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Links accessed April 2015

Whangarei District Council page on genetic engineering:

www.wdc.govt.nz/PlansPoliciesandBylaws/Plans/Genetic-Engineering/Pages/d…

Previous Soil & Health media releases about the Environment Court case:

organicnz.org.nz/node/1020

organicnz.org.nz/node/1017

Previous GE Free Northland media release about the case:

web.gefreenorthland.org.nz/news/northland/00154-court-case-for-local-choice-about-gmos

Previous GE Free NZ media releases about the case:

press.gefree.org.nz/press/20150517.htm

press.gefree.org.nz/press/20150427.htm

GE or not GE? A victory for democracy

New Zealanders can take heart that it is now confirmed that regional councils have the right to make planning decisions about the outdoor use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their regions. Environment Court Judge Newhook determined yesterday that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act for regional councils to make provision for GMOs through regional policy statements and plans.

“We welcome this as a victory for sound resource management,” said Marion Thomson, co-chair of the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand. “The decision confirms our view that the RMA allows local bodies to manage any potential use of GMOs as part of their land use (resource management) planning function.”

The case was brought by Federated Farmers of NZ, who had lodged an appeal with the Environment Court opposing precautionary provisions for GMOs in the Proposed Northland Regional Policy Statement. Soil & Health and GE Free Northland coordinated a group of 12 other interested parties in support of Whangarei District Council and Northland Regional Council in the Environment Court last month.

As a starting point, Federated Farmers challenged whether there is jurisdiction for local authorities to make provisions for the management of the outdoor use of GMOs under the RMA. That challenge has now been rejected by the Environment Court.

“Soil & Health and GE Free Northland combined represent more than 3000 members plus consumers and producers, both organic and conventional, who want to avoid GE. Our view – and the view of a majority of Kiwis in survey after survey – is that genetic engineering is not needed or wanted in our food or environment,” said Marion Thomson. “The best path for New Zealand is to live up to our clean and green reputation by using GE-free, organic and sustainable farming methods that benefit our environment, health and economy.”

GE Free Northland spokesman, Martin Robinson, added: “Local authorities need to be able to respond to their communities’ aspirations. The laws around liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO, for example, are non-existent. There are risks to the economy, the environment, biosecurity, and cultural and social values. Therefore councils may want take a precautionary approach and impose conditions on the outdoor use of GMOs in their area. This could include, for example, identifying areas where the use of GMOs is not appropriate, or establishing policies and criteria for assessing potential impact on other resources, such as existing organic farms.”

Several councils, notably in Auckland, Northland, Bay of Plenty and Hastings, already have precautionary or prohibitive wording regarding GMOs in their plans.

In the 2013 case Scion vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council, the Environment Court (also)allowed the Council to retain reference to GMOs in its Regional Policy Statement. Soil & Health also took a lead role among a group of section 274 parties (submitters) in support of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s retention of precautionary GMO references.

This latest decision by Judge Newhook validates and strengthens that decision, and confirms that both the HSNO Act and the RMA have complementary roles to play in the management of GMOs in the environment.

CONTACTS
Marion Thomson,
Co-chair, Soil & Health Association of NZ
027 555 4014

Martin Robinson
Spokesperson, GE Free Northland
09 407 8650
022 136 9619

Can we keep local control over GE?

Genetic engineering is again in the spotlight as the Soil & Health Association of NZ and GE Free Northland lead a group of interested parties in support of Whangarei District Council and Northland Regional Council in the Environment Court this Friday.

Federated Farmers of NZ lodged an appeal with the Environment Court, opposing precautionary provisions for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the Proposed Northland Regional Policy Statement.

This Friday’s hearing is set to hear argument on the preliminary question of whether local authorities can plan for the use of GMOs under the Resource Management Act.

Soil & Health, working in partnership with GE Free Northland, seeks confirmation of their view that the Resource Management Act allows for local authority planning documents to manage the outdoor use of GMOs.

“Soil & Health represents 3000 members, plus consumers and producers, both organic and conventional, who want a planned approach to GE that is integrated with the sustainable use and protection of other resources,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “We support the right of local bodies to manage any potential use of GMOs in their area.”

Soil & Health and GE Free Northland have coordinated 12 other section 274 parties to present a joint case in the jurisdiction hearing on Friday.

In the 2013 case Scion vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council, the Environment Court allowed the Council to retain reference to GMOs in its Regional Policy Statement. Soil & Health also took a lead role among a group of section 274 parties (submitters) in support of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s retention of precautionary GMO references.

CONTACT
Marion Thomson
Co-chair, Soil & Health Association
027 555 4014

Will new farming leader jeopardise NZ’s GE-free advantage?

The recent election of William Rolleston as president of Federated Farmers could mean a push towards genetic engineering (GE) in farming, warns the Soil & Health Association. Dr Rolleston has for many years been a proponent of GE, and some farmers, both organic and conventional, fear he may use his position to continue to promote the risky, unwanted and unnecessary technology.

“Markets the world over want clean, green, GE-free and organic food,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “New Zealand is in the perfect position to satisfy this demand by remaining GE-free in our farming and environment. It’s not just organic farmers who want to stay GE-free; many other producers, such as Pure Hawkes Bay, recognise the advantages.”

Federated Farmers has to date said that farmers should have the right to choose how they farm. However in practice GE crops cannot coexist with GE-free crops.

“Once the genie is out of the bottle there is no putting it back in,” says Thomson. “Overseas experience shows crop contamination causes huge problems for GE-free farmers, such as loss of markets, loss of organic certification and court cases.”

Soil & Health deplores the fact that millions of dollars of New Zealand taxpayers’ money has been spent on GE experiments over the past two decades, with no benefits yet produced. GE crops planted overseas have led to more pesticides being used, the rise of resistant pests and ‘superweeds’, and no long-term increases in yields. Our public money should instead be spent on agricultural research that will benefit everyone: farmers and consumers, our health, economy and the environment.

“Farmers already have great systems and know-how – we don’t need GE,” says Thomson. “Organic and biological practices provide particular benefits such as excellent soil health and structure, animal health, biodiversity, drought-resistance and nutrient density, plus organic products are free from nasty chemicals.”

Court decision empowers local body protection against GMO risks

As people around New Zealand are preparing submissions to their local authorities, the Soil & Health Association is pleased that a recent Environment Court decision sets a precedent which empowers local bodies to protect their communities from the risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The Environment Court decision in December 2013[1] allowed the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to retain reference to GMOs in its Regional Policy Statement. The court case was brought by Scion (NZ Forest Research Institute), to prevent the BOP Regional Council advising caution when considering the use of GMOs in the environment. Scion has received millions of taxpayer dollars to develop genetically engineered pine trees in a field trial at Rotorua, and the Council included precautionary wording in response to concerns from the Bay of Plenty community and primary industries.

Soil & Health, which has advocated for a GE-free New Zealand on behalf of its members and supporters for many years, took the lead role among five section 274 (interested) parties to the court case.

“It has been demonstrated that although the risk of GMO field trials may be relatively low, the potential environmental and community impact if GMO activities were able to establish in the future without integrated planning could be very significant,” said Robert Makgill, in closing legal submissions for Soil & Health and the other section 274 parties. “Whole industries could be wiped out and significant natural resources compromised. The promotion of sustainable management requires local authorities to be alert to these possibilities.”

The Environment Court’s decision sets a precedent. It clearly indicates that the Resource Management Act can be used to manage activities involving GMOs in the Bay of Plenty region. The Court indicated that the Council may propose more directive regulation in the future. Communities and industries in the Bay can now work towards stricter rules in their District and City Plans to protect and keep their ‘GE-free’ environment status and marketing advantage.

“Soil & Health congratulates the BOP Regional Council for acting on the issue in the first place. We also welcome the court decision, which will encourage communities around New Zealand, including farmers, growers, exporters and consumers, to ask their local authorities to protect their environments and livelihoods from any adverse risks of GMOs,” says Karen Summerhays, a Soil & Health member who was also a section 274 party to the court case.

Media contact: on behalf of the S274 parties
Karen Summerhays, 09 837 7311

[1]Read the court decision at http://www.boprc.govt.nz/media/321876/environment-court-decision-18-dec-2013-env-2012-339-000041-part-one-section-17.pdf

Landmark court case on GE

One of the world’s oldest organic organisations is going to court to support caution on genetic engineering. The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, founded in 1941, is leading a group of interested parties in support of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s precautionary approach to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in its Regional Policy Statement.

“We are advocating on behalf of our 3000 members, plus consumers and producers, both organic and conventional, who want a precautionary approach to GE,” said Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “Soil & Health is a not-for-profit organisation and we have received amazing support for this case in our recent appeal to members and supporters.”

The publicly owned Forest Research Institute, Scion, triggered the court case by appealing the Council’s inclusion of precautionary wording about GMOs. The case will be heard in the Environment Court in Tauranga on 28–29 November. Scion has received millions of taxpayer dollars to develop genetically engineered pine trees. It has a field trial at Rotorua, and approval to plant thousands of GE pine trees.

Five parties have joined the Council’s defence as Section 274 Parties (interested parties who originally made submissions to the Council on its Regional Policy Statement). They are Soil & Health, GE Free NZ (in Food and Environment), GE Free Northland and two individuals: John Sanderson and former Bay of Plenty Regional Councillor Karen Summerhays.

“Soil & Health supports the right of local bodies to manage any potential release of GMOs in their area,” said Thomson. “We are concerned that Environment Minister Amy Adams has signalled her intention to ban councils from being able to manage GMOs as a land-use issue in their regions, cities or districts. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council has listened to community concerns and stated that they promote a precautionary approach to GMOs. They also acknowledge that current legislation may be inadequate to deal with potential adverse effects of GMOs in the region.”

“GMOs are incompatible with organic systems, and are not allowed in food or farming according to organic certification standards,” said Thomson. Overseas, there have been numerous farmers who have lost their GE-free or certified organic status because of contamination from GE crops. A well-known case was that of Percy Schmeiser in Canada, whose canola crop became contaminated by his neighbour’s GE canola; seed company Monsanto eventually settled out of court. In Western Australia, Steve Marsh lost organic certification for 70% of his farm when his oats and wheat crops became contaminated by a neighbour’s GE canola; a court case is pending.

Pine tree trial

Pine tree trial at Scion’s Rotorua site

NZ must retain GE-free advantage

It is disappointing that Federated Farmers is opposing council caution around genetically engineered organisms, according to the Soil & Health Association. Federated Farmers has lodged an appeal with the Environment Court, opposing the Northland Regional Council’s precautionary policy on GE.

“Consumers and markets around the world want GE-free products, so it makes economic sense to retain New Zealand’s enviable GE-free status,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health.

“Federated Farmers president Bruce Wills says we need to have a sensible grown-up discussion about GE. This is exactly what Soil & Health has been engaging in for 20 or so years,” says Thomson. “GE crops have not lived up to the hype of their promoters. In fact they have led to increased use of pesticides, contamination of GE-free and organic crops, and there are increasing concerns about negative health effects.”

“When you look at all the aspects of the debate, including the science, the economics, the environmental, social and community aspects, there are multiple reasons to retain our reputation as clean, green, GE-free New Zealand. On top of that, we can enhance our health, environment and markets by increasing organic production.”

Several farming groups, including Pure Hawkes Bay and the Organic Dairy and Pastoral Group, support the advantages of being GE-free. Overseas, farmers have lost their GE-free or certified organic status because of contamination from GE crops planted by their neighbours. This has resulted in a drop in income as well as extra time and money spent on court battles and on reorganising their farm production.

 

Media contact: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz, 09 419 4536

Soil & Health, established in 1941, is one of the world’s oldest organic organisations and publishes Organic NZ. We advocate for people’s right to have fresh, healthy, organic food and water free of GE, pesticides and additives. Oranga nuku, oranga kai, oranga tangata.

https://soilandhealth.org.nz

http://www.facebook.com/OrganicNZ

New GE techniques slipping under radar?

A new gene-splitting technique must be defined as genetic engineering, says the Soil & Health Association. If not, more new techniques like it may be used in crops, food and other products without our knowledge, and with unknown consequences. Zinc finger nuclease involves splitting DNA strands so that genetic material may be inserted or removed.

“There is a raft of new technologies being developed that are the next wave of genetic engineering,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health – Organic NZ. “These new technologies must be thoroughly and independently scrutinised and the precautionary principle applied. Otherwise, it’s an uncontrolled experiment that could have adverse effects for people, animals and the environment.”

The Soil & Health Association commends the Sustainability Council for challenging a decision by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that zinc finger nuclease is not genetic engineering. The EPA committee that made the decision went against staff advice. The case will now be heard in the High Court in Wellington in November.